Occam's Razor... at what point does the razor get blunt from overuse?

Let us accept the age old liberal argument that the Plutocracy is not actually trying to kill off the excess workers that can't find a job in the new economy.

The Right keeps cutting jobs and sending them overseas, while cutting welfare and even benefits for the troops. Each time they do this, it costs lives and drives people into abject poverty and homelessness. Liberals remind the Plutocracy of the consequences of their actions. The Plutocrats, upon hearing this, go right back to doing it again. This process has repeated itself repeatedly over the last TWO HUNDRED years.

Now let's look at the example of a homici-er, um, inconsiderate driver. This driver takes a Hummer and drives to the country club, but along the way there's a bunch of schoolkids making their way to school. His Hummer brutally plows through them as they cross the street, killing 5 kids and wounding a dozen, and he never slows down to so much as look at the carnage left in his wake. The cops arrest him and he chastises the kids for being in his way. His defense fails, he pays a fine, but he doesn't see a day in jail. The next week he comes back down that road and kills another 5 kids, all without even slowing down. This time he has bought the judge and gets off scot-free. The kids change their route to school, and one of this guy's country club buddies runs them over along his route.

Occam's Razor says this is not murder, but rather a case of reckless driving. That works the first time, folks. That doesn't work the second time, or when his cohorts do the same thing. The razor gets blunt from overuse.

At what point does repeated acts of negligent manslaughter become murder, especially when you can clearly establish a motive? Eventually you must abandon the liberal use of Occam's Razor and accept the Leftist conclusion that this is being done intentionally. The working class is being culled.

This is the reality of the Capitalist version of population control: it's the poor that get controlled. By intent, not accident.

1. When they use it to attack vagina

2. Until blame and reprisal

is levied bipartisanly against those in government responsible for continuing regressive trade policy which allows for easy exportation of jobs, we will get nowhere. The problem is people wanting to place all the blame on the other party..revisionism it is..

3. Terrible misuse of William of Ockham

Ockam's razor (Occam is okay) states the principle of parsimony, that an explanation which is best is the one with the fewest unnecessary entities. The razor slices them off because they have no explanatory power.

I am sorry, but I don't understand where what you are going on about has anything to do with parsimony. As a metaphor, I don't see the analogy.

But I agree with your post otherwise. I am just being a bit of a pedant about Occam/Ockam.

8. Let's call this "Occam's Taser."

It jolts the reader into senselessness without actually getting you anywhere.

The first place you have to start are with facts. For example, it's the population of the poor that disproportionately increases year-over-year. It controverts your hypothesis.

Analogy is a poor basis for arguing facts. The closer the analogy is to reality, the better the basis for an argument that's taken to be true--on the other hand, the closer the analogy is to reality, the less the need for the analogy.

Then there's critical thinking--Occam's razor being part of critical thinking, sensu lato. You have to look at your "facts" and distinguish between facts that are supported by observation, facts that you are merely assumption, explicit assumptions that may or may not be true, and then figure out how they all fit together. If everything hangs on one assumption, then the truth of the proposed conclusion is no fitter than the assumption. If you need to assume the conclusion to make sure that you interpret ambiguous facts the correct way, you don't have a necessarily valid conclusion. If you don't know how valid your facts are, there's no way of knowing how valid your conclusion is.

I also like Hanlon's Razor. Since I quote poorly, i'll just paraphrase. There's no need to assume malice when simple stupidity accounts for the data. Most people assume things are personal because they don't like the idea of something impersonal causing them grief.

I'd propose Igel's Razor: However important you think you loom in other people's motives and reasoning, odds are they don't ascribe nearly as much importance to you as you believe they ascribe to you.

14. When you pass laws OUTLAWING the feeding of the homeless, that explanation fails.

Bans on Feeding the Homeless Are Discriminatory and Unconstitutional
In parks around the world, people are free to feed themselves, pigeons, squirrels, and even rats. So why are local governments increasingly preventing them from feeding other people?

Or if "Reason" magazine is somehow connected to Prison Planet by some imaginary theory, how about the ACLU:

16. I don't see that intent

... in the activity you describe.

The GOP are the party of multiplying restrictions on individual conduct, regardless of the mouth-noises they make about wanting "small government." We see this every day. We're arguing about intent here, which is an interpretive argument. You think they don't want the poor fed because they want to starve the poor. I think they don't want the poor fed because they want to control individual conduct.

While I'm sure quite a few GOP people are filled with hatred against... everything and anything, that hatred doesn't mean they want to kill the hated object. Isn't it as reasonably likely that they want to see the hated object suffer?

The opposite of love is indifference. I would wager that a good many of the sociopaths in the GOP are so far gone, they don't even hate, really -- which is why I say, as far as your example of running over children is concerned, they just don't care. If some peon gets in their face, it might generate annoyance or hatred, but that's only because the peon has been brought to their attention.

"Culling" is done to assure survival of the herd. I doubt the GOP wants to do that.

What makes you think predators hate their prey? Does a wolf care about a sheep? No, he cares about lunch.
Granted, people have reasoning ability beyond that of the wolf, so we can superadd hatred to predatory behavior. But it is not a requirement.